United States v. Andrew Peterson
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10818
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Peterson, a gang member, pled guilty to being a felon in possession of ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) after ammunition he possessed was used in a 30-shot attack on a Minneapolis hospital; no one was injured.
- He did not fire the weapon but possessed the ammunition; one bullet nearly struck an infant.
- Arrested in January 2015 on unrelated burglary-tools charges, he was serving a state sentence when indicted federally in August 2015.
- The district court sentenced Peterson to 120 months’ imprisonment (the statutory maximum and within the Guidelines) and ordered the federal sentence to run consecutive to his undischarged state sentence.
- Peterson appealed, arguing (1) the district court violated due process by not ruling on his objections to the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) and (2) the court abused its discretion by ordering his federal sentence to run consecutively to the state sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court violated due process by failing to rule on PSR objections | Peterson: court must rule on and/or strike objected-to PSR material; failure violated due process and warrants resentencing | Government: court may decline to rule on objections that do not affect sentencing under Rule 32(i)(3)(B) | Court: No due process violation; district court properly declined to rule because contested material did not affect sentencing; no need to strike and no resentencing required |
| Whether imposing consecutive sentence was an abuse of discretion | Peterson: consecutive sentence was unreasonable/abusive because it compounded punishment while state sentence remained undischarged | Government: court has broad discretion to impose consecutive sentence and considered § 3553(a) and U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3 factors | Court: Sentence was reasonable; district court did not commit procedural error, referenced § 3553(a) and Guideline comment, and the within-Guidelines consecutive sentence was substantively reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hopkins, 824 F.3d 726 (8th Cir. 2016) (Rule 32 does not require striking disputed PSR material when court states it did not rely on it)
- United States v. Poe, 764 F.3d 914 (8th Cir. 2014) (reasonableness review for concurrent vs. consecutive sentencing)
- United States v. Mathis, 451 F.3d 939 (8th Cir. 2006) (appellate review of sentencing discretion is similar to abuse-of-discretion standard)
- United States v. Bryant, 606 F.3d 912 (8th Cir. 2010) (district courts have broad discretion to order consecutive sentences to undischarged terms)